|Burst Media Corporation
||COM SHS USD0.01 (REGS)
||EPS - Basic
||Market Cap (m)
Burst Media Corporation Share Discussion Threads
Showing 301 to 322 of 325 messages
|i have some shares in burst media and am trying to figure what to do
can anyone help on the following
1. what explains the recent move in the blinkx share price. It seemed to jump in a single day in Mid April to over 140p. This seems to have happended the week after the last trading statement/announcement of burst
2. is there any effective discount going in respect of burst shares as a way into blink on the cheap. I was slightly preplexed to see burst now trading above 30p..but on reflection this is clearly reflecting the ability to convert into blinkx
this is what the announcemnet actually said
Pursuant to the Merger Agreement Burst stockholders will receive US$0.4093 (25.08 pence) in cash or New Blinkx Shares, per Burst Share held by them (the "Per Share Amount")
can anyone do the maths here?|
Personal blog for any interested parties. Posted on here because I do refer to brst.
Otherwise just ignore.
|Thought this rise was consolidation,congrats on who had money in this one.LOL|
Personal blog in which I refer to BRST, for any interested parties.
|Burst media Corp have received 'irrevocable and unconditional written consents' to the aqusition of Burst. 82.3% of shareholders voted in favour.|
|This seems a very lucky escape for longterm holders that bought near the start.
Count your blessings.|
|Accredited shareholders will get 0.248443 Blinx shares per Burst share. I'm not for selling....Is this Christmas? or am I dreaming? I thought this would never give a profit!|
|Well done whoever had some, christmas just came real early!|
|congrats guys. :)))|
|Dracula rise from the grave.|
|Sorry. Please forgive the typo error.....I got a bit excited!|
Story on the acquisition today with advice for Burst shareholders|
|Garry - you have your numbers the wrong way round!! 25.08p, not 52.08p
-- Pursuant to the Merger Agreement Burst stockholders will receive US$0.4093 (25.08 pence) in cash or New Blinkx Shares, per Burst Share held by them (the "Per Share Amount")|
pat mustard irl
|We are being taken over by Blinkx plc for 25.08p per share or Blinkx shares. FAB!|
|It looks like Burst by name, Burst by nature.|
|25p buy from blinx or shares.. hold or sell.. thanks|
|New note on Stockopedia - http://www.stockopedia.co.uk/research/burst-media-corp-lonbrst-profitability-delayed-46782/|
|Maryland law a lesson for all prospective shareholders
By David Blackwell
Published: August 7 2009 03:00 | Last updated: August 7 2009 03:00
"It has now become clear to the board that the expected increase in revenue will take longer to fully materialise than originally expected."
That was the warning, complete with gloriously split infinitive, that put the "burst" into Burst Media only four months after the internet advertising company floated on Aim in April 2006. There is nothing like an early profits warning to knock the stuffing out of new shares. They fell from a placing price of 82p and have bumbled along with little liquidity since, touching a low of less than 3½p at the end of last year.
So it is no surprise that some shareholders are keen to sell at 12p a share to Cyberplex, another internet advertising company, which is listed on the Toronto stock exchange. But the board disagrees and last week turned it down.
One of the reasons they were able to do so is that Burst Media, which is based in Boston, US, operates under Maryland law, a fact that even the larger shareholders failed to notice. But towards the back of the admission document, under takeover matters, it is made clear that one provision "may have an anti-takeover effect with respect to transactions not approved in advance by the board of directors, including discouraging attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for the shares of the company's common stock".
Another provision ensures that when any party's total shareholding crosses one of three thresholds at 10, 33.3 and 50 per cent, the shares acquired have no voting rights unless 66 per cent of the remaining shares are voted in favour of that party. This "poison pill" clause ensures that even if Cyberplex bought half the shares - and it has signed proxies on about 40 per cent - it would have no voting rights unless 66 per cent of the remaining shares were voted in its favour first. So Burst Media board's 30 per cent holding would be enough to block any takeover.
Cyberplex is a little miffed, and so are many shareholders. Cyberplex first approached the company on the possibility of a merger in November last year. At the time, Cyberplex shares were 42 Canadian cents. But it has put in a good performance and last month was able to raise a further C$18m at C$1.60 a share.
News of how much Cyberplex was willing to pay emerged only last week and has boosted Burst Media's share price. Vernon Lobo, chairman of Cyberplex, said the proposal had the support of about 40 per cent of Burst's shares - or 56 per cent if the board's stake is excluded - "yet we were unable to engage with the board of directors to further a potential transaction or to take the proposal to Burst's entire shareholder base".
Cyberplex's decision to go public prompted a reply from Burst, which said the "unsolicited indicative approach" was "opportunistic and unreflective" of its worth. It also pointed out that as a US corporation, the City code on takeovers and mergers does not apply to it.
Meanwhile, Burst has been busy buying back shares in order to, as David Hanger, the chairman, boasts in the 2008 annual report, "provide liquidity to shareholders". On January 21, it bought back 9.8m shares at 3.6p.
Then in March the company revealed it had received an unsolicited expression of interest regarding a potential cash offer at between 6.3p and 7p a share from a UK company. It rejected the approach as inappropriate and on May 6 bought back another 2.6m shares at 5.9p a share.
Steve Hill, chief financial officer, says the company ended a strategic review in January and decided the market was too poor to put the company up for sale. The share buy-back had been launched at shareholders' request.
"The bottom of the business cycle is the wrong time to sell. It would be different if we had no cash and no prospects," he says, adding that the company had enjoyed a terrific second quarter.
However, looking at the company's history since that untimely profits warning in its flotation year, you have to wonder if it has ever been at the top of the business cycle. Last year, revenue was flat at $27m and the company fell into the red.
It does have $10m of cash, so before the shares bounced after the Cyberplex announcement they were worth less than the cash. Perhaps Cyberplex has spotted a bargain, but the point is that its offer will not be put to the shareholders.
Remaining shareholders, let alone those who sold back to the company at 3.6p, are reflecting ruefully on how they might have quadrupled their money if the company had merged with Cyberplex before its shares rocketed in March.
But as one pointed out, the more fool me for becoming a shareholder without reading the articles of association. Any other Aim companies out there operating under Maryland law?|
|5 August 2009
Burst Media, a US company that sells banner advertising on behalf of 5,000 websites, arrived on Aim three years ago with a good record. Sales had tripled in the previous three years and net income had risen from minus $1.3m to plus $3.4m. A further 60 per cent advance in earnings was due to be reported by the end of the year. The company priced itself at 26 times historic earnings and placed 56 per cent of its shares at 82p, raising £35m from blue-chip institutions.
There were a few negative factors. Why did such a successful company choose to list in London instead of its home market? The venture capital backers were selling out lock, stock and barrel. And as the prospectus spelt out in laborious detail, the fact that Burst was incorporated in Maryland meant it was not obliged to respect several normal protections for UK investors, including the Takeover Code. Perhaps to assuage such concerns, Burst had recruited a very august figure as non-executive chairman, namely David Hanger, previously chief executive of The Economist magazine.
The upbeat mood lasted five months. In September 2006, Burst confessed sales growth had slowed from 50 per cent to 11 per cent and earnings would shrink by a third. The shares collapsed to 25p.
A few months later Burst said it was back on track and "looking forward to a good 2007". It was not to be. In 2007, sales grew only 14 per cent; in 2008, by 1 per cent. Net income was back in the red. The comparison with soaring internet activity was stark. Last December, Burst's network reached 113m US internet users, up 40 per cent in a year.
The shares spent most of last winter below 4p, improving to 6p after Burst dipped into its $10m cash pile to buy 12m shares. Burst's cash, which has stayed pretty steady since the flotation, is worth over 7p a share. Thus, the market attributes a negligible or even negative value to the business itself.
Last week it emerged that one of Burst's rivals, Cyberplex - a Canadian company - has had an offer on the Burst's boardroom table since last November. Three months ago, just as Burst was conducting its latest share buy-back programme at 5.9p, Cyberplex increased its offer to 12p a share in cash. Cyberplex has written support for its offer (in the form of proxies) from major shareholders holding 40 per cent of Burst.
Cyberplex seems to be the company Burst's shareholders hoped they were investing in, back in 2006. Last year, almost entirely via organic growth, its sales quadrupled to $60m. In the first quarter of this year, sales quadrupled. Profits are in a similar groove. Its shares have risen 300 per cent since last November. If its initial share and cash offer had succeeded, Burst's shareholders would have gained handsomely. Meanwhile, Burst's media division reported "a general slowdown in ad spending" and flat sales for the first half of 2009.
The reason Cyberplex has not made its offer directly to Burst's shareholders lies in the Maryland General Corporation Law, which contains the remarkable provision that if anyone buys a majority interest in a company, they can't vote their shares without the say so of two-thirds of the minority shares. Since Burst's founder, chief executive Jarvis Coffin and fellow executive director David Stein own 28 per cent of Burst and oppose Cyberplex, the offer is going nowhere until they come out of their bunkers.
It must be testing for David Hanger, especially as he may be seen at http://studio.indigopapa.tv/electrofilm/CE09 giving a talk on the role of non-executive directors. He explains how this involves "acting in a way that shareholders would want the company to go... that's how you have to behave... this can make it extremely awkward when a management sees their life as being in the company and a predator comes along who will create value for the shareholders..."
No doubt Mr Hanger will in due course resolve this awkwardness, perhaps by utilising another unusual aspect of Burst's governance procedures, which give him the unfettered right to call an extraordinary general meeting of the company. At such a meeting, messrs Coffin and Stein could explain why they believe the company is worth more than the Cyberplex offer. This is surely the "the way that shareholders would want to go" and, moreover, the very least they are entitled to.
Cyberplex's second-quarter results are due out as we go to press. If they're anything like the first quarter's, the pressure in the Burst boardroom will surely pass a critical point.
|how much more upside left.. thanks hold from 15p|
|Intention to repurchase shares (from yesterday)
By the looks of it they are buying at 5.9p (a good deal when cash is 9p per share). They must arrange these deals beforehand, then issue an RNS with their intentions, then do the buyback the next day.|